[Haskell-cafe] Proposal: Partitionable goes somewhere + containers instances

Ryan Newton rrnewton at gmail.com
Mon Sep 30 15:22:00 UTC 2013

> so the simple O(1) split would produce three submaps, the middle one
> having only one element. This operation would not be very
> parallelization-friendly.

Actually, I'm perfectly happy with that in this case!

   - A decent work-stealing system can tolerate a fairly large number of
   excessively small, trivial computations. It's having *only* those that's
   a big problem.  (Which is what you often get if your parallel container ops
   spawn a task per element.)
   - Since Maps support O(1) size, the consumer of the split-up-map could
   choose to sequentially execute the singleton maps if desired.

Personally, I'm most interested in set-like operations and don't need any
order guarantees.  But that's another dimension in which one could chop up
the API...

Maybe this does deserve its own module in the namespace, and maybe its own
package, as Edward suggested.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20130930/cfea7018/attachment.html>

More information about the Libraries mailing list